Thread: Donovan McNabb to Minnesota Vikings?It makes sense

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093163

I've posted them many times, showing round by round the percentage of QB's that become stars, servicable and duds. First round, especially the top half give you a good shot at a good QB. Second round those odds drop significantly, and third and beyond it's just pure luck.

That's not to say drafting a crap player in the first automatically makes him a good player, just that the top QB's usually go in the first, hence why the odds are better in round one.

Every single year, there's a guy like Stanzi, that guys think is a great value pick in the late second or third, but never really pans out at all.

This year is likely no different.

I didn't see your reply to my post of all the QB's that weren't drafted in the "Early" rounds.

I kindof had fun making that post as I found all those QB's and looked at the ones that were taken ahead of them each and every year that failed misserably at QB. :laugh:

Truth is, I think that teams are doing a pretty good job of late when it comes to evaluating talent in the draft. My guess, the reason why is because of the ease that you can get tape or fly to watch a cat play.

Mix that with the numbers owners are paying them now, scouting staffs seem to be funded better (my opinion there).

Yes and no.

With QB that's really hard to do. You can watch a guy until you're blue in the face, know all about his physical traits, and how he plays the college game, but you can never accurately predict how he'll make the transition to the pros, and how he'll handle the mental aspect.

The college game is so much different, a whole new style of play for the most part, a good QB is good because of what's in his head, not in his shoulder.

It isn't hard to do. Thats one of my main points that is centered on the draft. Teams that know how to scout players and pick the ones that fit the scheme are sucessfull.

The ones that can't, well, they are always picking at the top of the draft now aren't they.

Originally Posted by "Brewtal" #1093131

I would rather see the year lost in a strike.

Not me, I would rather watch scab football than no football.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093171

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093163

I've posted them many times, showing round by round the percentage of QB's that become stars, servicable and duds. First round, especially the top half give you a good shot at a good QB. Second round those odds drop significantly, and third and beyond it's just pure luck.

That's not to say drafting a crap player in the first automatically makes him a good player, just that the top QB's usually go in the first, hence why the odds are better in round one.

Every single year, there's a guy like Stanzi, that guys think is a great value pick in the late second or third, but never really pans out at all.

This year is likely no different.

I didn't see your reply to my post of all the QB's that weren't drafted in the "Early" rounds.

I kindof had fun making that post as I found all those QB's and looked at the ones that were taken ahead of them each and every year that failed misserably at QB. :laugh:

Truth is, I think that teams are doing a pretty good job of late when it comes to evaluating talent in the draft. My guess, the reason why is because of the ease that you can get tape or fly to watch a cat play.

Mix that with the numbers owners are paying them now, scouting staffs seem to be funded better (my opinion there).

Yes and no.

With QB that's really hard to do. You can watch a guy until you're blue in the face, know all about his physical traits, and how he plays the college game, but you can never accurately predict how he'll make the transition to the pros, and how he'll handle the mental aspect.

The college game is so much different, a whole new style of play for the most part, a good QB is good because of what's in his head, not in his shoulder.

It isn't hard to do. Thats one of my main points that is centered on the draft. Teams that know how to scout players and pick the ones that fit the scheme are sucessfull.

The ones that can't, well, they are always picking at the top of the draft now aren't they.

It IS hard to do, otherwise teams would never miss with their draft picks. They'd see through guys and not draft them. We use teams like the Steelers, Patriots, Packers as teams that draft well, but they also miss on occasion. They also tend to take safe picks rather than risking on big-name players. When a guy like Rodgers drops to 23, it's much less of a risk than going #1 overall.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093170

o.
Another counter discussion point is......

What happens if we keep Rice and Sully can handle the Ol duties? Then we are back to the team, that in 2008 and 2009, could have carried a youngster that wasn't asked to do to much (ala a Sanchez at the Jets).

Sometimes, I think we over value what a Vet actually brings to the table at times but if a Vets wisdom is needed, you have a Hutch standing in the huddle, or a Shanc, or a Sauce etc etc etc.

If we are back to that 2008 or 2009 team then we are headed deep into the playoffs and I would rather have McNabb there than a rookie that the vets are carrying. I'm always a play the best players guy.

Experience is a great teacher my wise older friend. Come playoff time, I rather have a older Mcnabb than a wide eyed rookie.

Originally Posted by "kevoncox" #1093184

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093170

o.
Another counter discussion point is......

What happens if we keep Rice and Sully can handle the Ol duties? Then we are back to the team, that in 2008 and 2009, could have carried a youngster that wasn't asked to do to much (ala a Sanchez at the Jets).

Sometimes, I think we over value what a Vet actually brings to the table at times but if a Vets wisdom is needed, you have a Hutch standing in the huddle, or a Shanc, or a Sauce etc etc etc.

If we are back to that 2008 or 2009 team then we are headed deep into the playoffs and I would rather have McNabb there than a rookie that the vets are carrying. I'm always a play the best players guy.

Experience is a great teacher my wise older friend. Come playoff time, I rather have a older Mcnabb than a wide eyed rookie.

I've changed my thinking on this. Bring in McNabb. Next year we'll get an even higher draft pick.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093170

o.
Another counter discussion point is......

What happens if we keep Rice and Sully can handle the Ol duties? Then we are back to the team, that in 2008 and 2009, could have carried a youngster that wasn't asked to do to much (ala a Sanchez at the Jets).

Are you proposing that we could have duplicated what success we had in 09 with TJ at the helm?

I'd rather drink my own vomit than have Donovan McNabb as our QB.

34 years old.
Injury prone.
He's been a turnover machine for the past 3 seasons.
Benched for Rex Grossman.
Throws as many bad balls as any QB I've ever seen.
Product of Andy Reid's system.
Another band-aid on the QB position.
Was never really that great. His numbers were excellent the season he had TO, every other year he was good at best.
When he was able to make plays on the move and was a threat to run, he was dangerous. Now that he has to throw from the pocket and can't evade the pass rush like he used to? He's done.

I'd much, much rather give Webb a chance.

Originally Posted by "Mr Anderson" #1093189

I'd rather drink my own vomit than have Donovan McNabb as our QB.

34 years old.
Injury prone.
He's been a turnover machine for the past 3 seasons.
Benched for Rex Grossman.
Throws as many bad balls as any QB I've ever seen.
Product of Andy Reid's system.
Another band-aid on the QB position.
Was never really that great. His numbers were excellent the season he had TO, every other year he was good at best.
When he was able to make plays on the move and was a threat to run, he was dangerous. Now that he has to throw from the pocket and can't evade the pass rush like he used to? He's done.

I'd much, much rather give Webb a chance.

It just might end up being our best option this year.

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093187

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093170

o.
Another counter discussion point is......

What happens if we keep Rice and Sully can handle the Ol duties? Then we are back to the team, that in 2008 and 2009, could have carried a youngster that wasn't asked to do to much (ala a Sanchez at the Jets).

Are you proposing that we could have duplicated what success we had in 09 with TJ at the helm?

No, even though I have said that, for this discussion my point is that if we put the 2009 team back on the field in 2011, with a QB like Locker, Stanzi, Newton, GAbbert, we would get back to the playoffs.

Case in point, for this discussion was the Jets and Sanchez. He threw one heck of a bunch of INT's that year and the team still got as far as the Vikes did.

Again, focus is on 2011. Nothing else matters right now no matter what the Noodle crowd tries to spin it as. :P

Originally Posted by "Mr Anderson" #1093189

I'd rather drink my own vomit than have Donovan McNabb as our QB.

34 years old.
Injury prone.
He's been a turnover machine for the past 3 seasons.
Benched for Rex Grossman.
Throws as many bad balls as any QB I've ever seen.
Product of Andy Reid's system.
Another band-aid on the QB position.
Was never really that great. His numbers were excellent the season he had TO, every other year he was good at best.
When he was able to make plays on the move and was a threat to run, he was dangerous. Now that he has to throw from the pocket and can't evade the pass rush like he used to? He's done.

I'd much, much rather give Webb a chance.

You know, about this time last year I would have posted a long thread with counter discussion points.

AFter watching him last year, not so much. As with you, I'd rather draft a QB this year and let him and Webb fight it out.

(Key Note: Mostly cause I think this team can carry a QB right now if we get everybody (or a good share of them) back).